Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>
> What I find most confusing in your responses to my suggestion is that you did
> not react in a tenfold manner to the alternative I was responding to. By that
> suggestion, users could get a euro symbol not only using 0x20AC but also using
> 0x2021, and 0x00A4, both of these being characters that may otherwise be used by
> users. To me, that's far worse than being able to get a euro symbol using 0x20AC
> and 0x0080, particularly when the latter is not being advertised, and is not
> otherwise used by users.

The alternative you were responding to was so obviously flawed that it
hardly merited any further discussion. Your solution is now being
discussed because it is not obvious that there may be problems with it.

People may discover that your font(s) accept U+0080. They may even
discover it by accident. If Unicode data using U+0080 then proliferates,
you will be stuck supporting such bad data for a long time.